Bumpless Transfer Fault Tolerant Control Method for Aero-engine under Actuator Fault

ABSTRACT

A bumpless transfer fault tolerant control method for aero-engine under actuator fault is disclosed. For an aero-engine actuator fault, by adopting an undesired oscillation problem produced by an active fault tolerant control method based on a virtual actuator, in order to solve the shortage of the existing control method, a bumpless transfer active fault tolerant control design method for the aero-engine actuator fault is provided, which can guarantee that a control system of the reconfigured aero-engine not only has the same state and output as an original fault-free system without changing the structure and parameters of a controller, to achieve a desired control objective, and that a reconfigured system has a smooth transient state, that is, output parameters such as rotational speed, temperature and pressure do not produce the undesired transient characteristics such as overshoot or oscillation.

TECHNICAL FIELD

The present invention relates to a bumpless transfer active fault tolerant control design method for an aero-engine under actuator fault, which belongs to the technical field of aircraft control, and specifically, is an active fault tolerant control method for ensuring the smoothness around a switching point when the aero-engine actuator fault occurs in order to improve transient characteristics of a system when the controller reconfiguration is performed.

BACKGROUND

In the field of aero-engine control, it is always difficult to solve the problem of how a reconfigured controller is switched into a fault system without negative responses such as bump after an aero-engine actuator fault occurs. In view of the bumpless transfer design of a controller in a reconfiguration process, on one hand, the fault tolerant control should be effectively realized; on the other hand, a bump problem brought when a reconfigured controller is switched into the fault system should also be reduced, which can effectively reduce the potential safety hazard brought by the oscillation of the rotational speed of the low pressure and high pressure rotors of an aero-engine. Therefore, the present invention is of great significance for the switching of the reconfigured controller when the aero-engine actuator fault occurs.

It is shown in the literature that when an existing virtual actuator technology are used for the reconfiguration control of an actuator for the fault of the actuator, the switching process of the designed virtual actuator will lead to the occurrence of undesired oscillations. This kind of phenomenon is caused by a traditional virtual actuator fault tolerant technology, without the consideration that how the reconfigured virtual actuator is switched into the system when the virtual actuator is switched into a control system. Although the purpose of the reconfiguration control technology of the traditional virtual actuator is to ensure that the compensated controller can hide the fault when the actuator fault occurs in a control process, thereby ensuring that the original control effect can be restored to the system, if it is not considered that how the compensation is switched into the fault system, an adjoint oscillation phenomenon in the aero-engine control will cause a very serious safety hazard, and in serious cases will even cause a system state to diverse. The literature shows that there is no solution to this problem at present. In addition, a design structure of the traditional virtual actuator is not suitable for the optimal control of the performance when the actuator reconfiguration is implemented, because the optimal performance parameters to be solved are matrices, which will generate a large amount of computation.

The present invention improves a traditional design method of the technology, and on this basis, in combination with the optimal control, realizes the bumpless transfer of the reconfigured virtual actuator while analytically repairing a fault. The method can effectively reduce the impact brought by the bump in the fault tolerant process of the actuator, thereby reducing the safety hazard.

SUMMARY

The technical solution of the present invention is: according to an aero-engine actuator fault, an undesired oscillation problem produced by an active fault tolerant control method based on a virtual actuator, in order to solve the shortage of the existing control method, a bumpless transfer active fault tolerant control design method for the aero-engine actuator fault is provided, which can guarantee that a control system of the reconfigured aero-engine not only has the same state and output as an original fault-free system without changing the structure and parameters of a controller, to achieve a desired control objective, and that a reconfigured system has a smooth transient state, that is, output parameters such as rotational speed, temperature and pressure do not produce the undesired transient characteristics such as overshoot or oscillation. The proposed method is simple to calculate, which is of engineering significance to aero-engine performance improvement.

The technical solution of the present invention is that:

a bumpless transfer fault tolerant control method for an aero-engine actuator fault comprises the following steps:

step 1: expressing an aero-engine system as:

$\begin{matrix} \left\{ \begin{matrix} {{\overset{.}{x}(t)} = {{{Ax}(t)} + {{Bu}(t)}}} \\ {{y(t)} = {{Cx}(t)}} \end{matrix} \right. & (1) \end{matrix}$

where, x(t)∈R^(n) is a state of a system, A is n-dimensional square matrix, B is n×m matrix, C is n-dimensional square matrix, u(t)∈R^(m) is a system input and the input is designed as a form of output-state feedback: m is control input dimension, and n is state dimension;

u(t)=Ky(t)  (2)

where, K is gain matrix of an aero-engine controller;

when the actuator fault occurs, an aero-engine system is expressed as

$\begin{matrix} \left\{ \begin{matrix} {{{\overset{.}{x}}_{f}(t)} = {{{Ax}_{f}(t)} + {B_{f}{u_{f}(t)}}}} \\ {{y_{f}(t)} = {{Cx}_{f}(t)}} \end{matrix} \right. & (3) \end{matrix}$

where, an actuator fault matrix B_(f) is known, and B_(f) ^(T)*B_(f) is an invertible matrix; and f is used for characterizing a subscript of a fault system;

step 2: designing an improved virtual actuator, with a structural form shown in (4):

$\begin{matrix} \left\{ \begin{matrix} {{\overset{.}{\overset{\sim}{x}}(t)} = {{A{\overset{\sim}{x}(t)}} + {{Bu}(t)} - {B_{f}{u_{f}(t)}}}} \\ {{u_{f}(t)} = {{u_{w}(t)} + {{Nu}_{c}(t)}}} \\ {{y_{c}(t)} = {{C{\overset{\sim}{x}(t)}} + {y_{f}(t)}}} \end{matrix} \right. & (4) \end{matrix}$

where, {tilde over (x)}(t)∈R^(n) is a virtual actuator state, u_(c)(t)=−Ky_(c)(t),K is the same as that in an equation (2), u_(w)(t) is a parameter to be designed, N=B_(f) ^(†)B_(f), B_(f) ^(†) is a Moore-Penrose inverse matrix of B_(f); c is a subscript of a nominal controller, and w is a subscript of a variable to be solved;

step 3: in order to implement an aero-engine fault system in step 1 of a bumpless transfer of an improved virtual actuator in step 2, designing performance parameters shown in an equation (5), wherein when a performance function is optimized, the bumpless transfer of the virtual actuator in step 2 is implemented;

J=½{tilde over (x)} ^(T)(tf)C ^(T) RC{tilde over (x)}(tf)+∫₀ ^(tf)½(Bu(t)−B _(f) u _(f)(t))^(T) P(Bu(t)−B _(f) u _(f)(t))+½{tilde over ({dot over (x)})}^(T)(t)Q{tilde over ({dot over (x)})}dt  (5)

where, P≥0, Q≥0, R>0, P+Q>0, and P, Q, R are symmetric weight matrices;

Step 4: according to a form of an actuator fault matrix Bf, considering the following two conditions:

Condition 1: B _(f) B _(f) ^(†) B=B  (6)

Condition 2: B _(f) B _(f) ^(†) B≠B  (7)

when condition 1 occurs, the improved virtual executor (4) in step 2 is simplified as a form of the following equation (8):

$\begin{matrix} \left\{ \begin{matrix} {{\overset{.}{\overset{\sim}{x}}(t)} = {{A{\overset{\sim}{x}(t)}} - {B_{f}{u_{w}(t)}}}} \\ {{\overset{\sim}{x}\left( t_{0} \right)} = a} \end{matrix} \right. & (8) \end{matrix}$

where, a is an initial state that constant vectors characterize, which is obtained through difference between a state in aero-engine system (1) in step 1 and a state in a system (3) at the time when B_(f) is diagnosed after the fault;

when condition 2 occurs, the virtual executor (4) in step 2 is written as a form of the following equation (9):

$\begin{matrix} \left\{ \begin{matrix} {{\overset{.}{\overset{\sim}{x}}(t)} = {{A{\overset{\sim}{x}(t)}} - {\left( {I - {B_{f}B_{f}^{\dagger}}} \right){BKC}{\overset{\sim}{x}(t)}} - {\left( {I - {B_{f}B_{f}^{\dagger}}} \right){{BKy}_{f}(t)}} - {B_{f}{u_{w}(t)}}}} \\ {{\overset{\sim}{x}\left( t_{0} \right)} = a} \end{matrix} \right. & (9) \end{matrix}$

where, a is an initial state that constant vectors characterize, which is obtained through difference between the state in aero-engine system (1) in step 1 and the state in a system (3) at the time when the fault B_(f) is diagnosed, and I is n-dimensional square matrix;

step 5: in consideration of the condition 1 in step 4, designing a parameter u_(W) (t) according to an equation (10), that is, satisfying a performance index function in step 3 and implementing an aero-engine fault system (3) in step 1 of the bumpless transfer of the improved virtual actuator (4) in step 2:

u _(w)(t)=(B _(f) ^(T)(P+Q)B _(f))⁻¹ B _(f) ^(T)(QA+F(t)){tilde over (x)}(t)  (10)

where, the matrix F (t) is a symmetric positive definite matrix, and satisfies the equation (11) in the time interval t∈[0, tf]:

−{dot over (F)}(t)=F(t)A+(A ^(T)−(A ^(T) Q+F(t))B _(f)(B _(f) ^(T)(P+Q)B _(f))^(†) B _(f) ^(T)(QA+F(t)))   (11)

F(t) satisfies the following boundary condition (12):

C ^(T) F(tf)C=R  (12)

where, R is a weight matrix in step 3(5);

step 6: in consideration of the condition 2 in step 4, defining {circumflex over (x)}(t):={tilde over (x)}(t)+x_(f)(t), and expressing the reconfigured aero-engine control system as:

$\begin{matrix} \left\{ \begin{matrix} {{\overset{.}{\hat{x}}(t)} = {{A{\hat{x}(t)}} + {{Bu}(t)}}} \\ {{\hat{y}(t)} = {C{\hat{x}(t)}}} \end{matrix} \right. & (13) \end{matrix}$

wherein, the initial state is {circumflex over (x)}(0)=x_(f)(0)+{tilde over (x)}(0); and the reconfigured aero-engine control system state (14) influenced only by a design parameter K of an original aero-engine system controller is obtained by substituting an output-state feedback controller u (t)=−Kŷ(t)=−KC{circumflex over (x)}(t) into an equation (13), where K is consistent with the designed K in the equation (2) of step 1:

{circumflex over ({dot over (x)})}(t)=(A−BKC){circumflex over (x)}(t)  (14)

the equation (14) is substituted into a virtual actuator structure (9) in step 4, to obtain:

$\begin{matrix} \left\{ \begin{matrix} {{\overset{.}{\overset{\sim}{x}}(t)} = {{A{\overset{\sim}{x}(t)}} - {B_{f}{u_{w}(t)}} - {\left( {I - {B_{f}B_{f}^{\dagger}}} \right){BKC}{\hat{x}(t)}}}} \\ {{\overset{\sim}{x}\left( t_{0} \right)} = a} \end{matrix} \right. & (15) \end{matrix}$

the design parameter u_(w)(t) is shown in an equation (16), that is, the performance index function in step 3 is satisfied, and the aero-engine fault system (3) in step 1 of the bumpless transfer of the improved virtual actuator (4) in step 2 is implemented:

u _(w)(t)=(B _(f) ^(T)(P+Q)B _(f))⁻¹ B _(f) ^(T)(−(P+Q)(I−B _(f) B _(f) ^(†))BKC{circumflex over (x)}(t)+(QA+E(t)){tilde over (x)}(t)+G(t))  (16)

where, {circumflex over (x)}(t) satisfies the equation (14), and E(t) is the symmetric positive definite matrix of the equation (17) and satisfies a boundary condition of the equation (18);

$\begin{matrix} {{- {\overset{.}{E}(t)}} = {{{E(t)}\left( {I - {{B_{f}\left( {{B_{f}^{T}\left( {P + Q} \right)}B_{f}} \right)}^{- 1}B_{f}^{T}Q}} \right)A} + {{A^{T}\left( {I - {{{QB}_{f}\left( {{B_{f}^{T}\left( {P + Q} \right)}B_{f}} \right)}^{- 1}B_{f}^{T}}} \right)}{E(t)}} - {{E(t)}{B_{f}\left( {{B_{f}^{T}\left( {P + Q} \right)}B_{f}} \right)}^{- 1}B_{f}^{T}{E(t)}} + {A^{T}{QA}} - {A^{T}{{QB}_{f}\left( {{B_{f}^{T}\left( {P + Q} \right)}B_{f}} \right)}^{- 1}B_{f}^{T}{QA}}}} & (17) \end{matrix}$

E(t) satisfies the boundary condition:

C ^(T) E(tf)C=R  (18)

an adjoint vector G(t) satisfies the following equation:

$\begin{matrix} {{\overset{.}{G}(t)} = {{\left( {{\left( {{A^{T}Q} + {E(t)}} \right){B_{f}\left( {{B_{f}^{T}\left( {P + Q} \right)}B_{f}} \right)}^{- 1}} - A^{T}} \right){G(t)}} + {\left( {{E(t)} + {A^{T}Q}} \right)\left( {I - {{B_{f}\left( {{B_{f}^{T}\left( {P + Q} \right)}B_{f}} \right)}^{- 1}\left( {P + Q} \right)}} \right)\left( {I - {B_{f}B_{f}^{\dagger}}} \right){KC}{\hat{x}(t)}}}} & (19) \end{matrix}$

the boundary condition of the adjoint equation (19) is

G(tf)=0  (20)

The beneficial effects of the present invention are that: the reconfiguration fault tolerant control on the system after the aero-engine actuator fault occurs can be conducted through the aero-engine reconfigured controller designed by the method of the present invention, and the undesired bump brought by the switching can be effectively avoided when the reconfigured controller is switched.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 is a flow chart of reconfiguration control design for a bumpless virtual actuator of an aero-engine under actuator fault;

FIG. 2 is a virtual actuator switch framework of an aero-engine actuator fault system;

FIG. 3 is a contrast diagram of bumpless transfer of reconfiguration control input [ΔW_(fb)(t), ΔA₈(t)]^(T) in a condition 1;

FIG. 4 is a contrast diagram of bumpless transfer of reconfiguration control output [Δn_(l)(t), Δn_(h)(t)]^(T) in a condition 1;

FIG. 5 is a contrast diagram of bumpless transfer of fuel flow W_(f) of reconfiguration control input [Δn_(l)(t), Δn_(h)(t)]^(T) in a condition 2; and

FIG. 6 is a contrast diagram of bumpless transfer of fuel flow W_(f) of reconfiguration control output [Δn_(f)(t), Δn_(c)(t)]^(T) in a condition 2.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

The present invention will be further described below in combination with the drawings. The research object of the present invention is the reconfiguration and the switching process of a controller after an aero-engine actuator fault occurs, a design method thereof is shown in a flow chart of FIG. 1, and the detailed design steps are as follows:

step 1: obtaining an aero-engine system model A,B,C,x(t₀), a gain matrix K of an aero-engine controller and a parameter B_(f), x_(f)(t₀) of the aero-engine system after fault;

step 2: according to an actuator parameter matrix B of the aero-engine system and the diagnosed actuator parameter matrix B_(f) after fault, judging the conditions; if B_(f)B_(f) ^(†)B=B, performing a step 3; and if B_(f)B_(f) ^(†)B≠B, performing a step 5;

step 3: designing a virtual actuator as:

$\begin{matrix} \left\{ \begin{matrix} {{\overset{.}{\overset{\sim}{x}}(t)} = {{A{\overset{\sim}{x}(t)}} - {B_{f}{u_{w}(t)}}}} \\ {{u_{f}(t)} = {{u_{w}(t)} - {B_{f}^{\dagger}B_{f}{{Ky}_{c}(t)}}}} \\ {{y_{c}(t)} = {{C{\overset{\sim}{x}(t)}} + {y_{f}(t)}}} \end{matrix} \right. & (21) \end{matrix}$

where, {tilde over (x)}(t₀)=x(t₀)−x_(f)(t₀), u_(w)(t)=(B_(f) ^(T)(P+Q)B_(f))⁻¹B_(f) ^(T)(QA+F(t)){tilde over (x)}(t); and a symmetric positive definite matrix F(t) is obtained by solving a Riccati equation (22) in which the boundary conditions satisfy C^(T)F(tf)C=R.

−{dot over (F)}(t)=F(t)A+(A ^(T)−(A ^(T) Q+F(t))B _(f)(B _(f) ^(T)(P+Q)B _(f))^(†) B _(f) ^(T)(QA+F(t)))   (22)

Using the switch logic in FIG. 2, the reconfigured u_(f) is switched into a fault model, and the compensated controller input y_(c)(t) is switched into an original aero-engine controller without changing the parameter of the original aero-engine controller K.

step 4: designing the virtual controller as:

$\quad\begin{matrix} \left\{ \begin{matrix} {{u_{f}(t)} = {{u_{w}(t)} - {B_{f}^{\dagger}B_{f}K{y_{c}(t)}}}} \\ {{y_{c}(t)} = {{C{\overset{\sim}{x}(t)}} + {y_{f}(t)}}} \\ {{\overset{.}{\overset{\sim}{x}}(t)} = {{A{\overset{\sim}{x}(t)}} - {B_{f}{u_{w}(t)}} - {\left( {I - {B_{f}B_{f}^{\dagger}}} \right){BKC}{\hat{x}(t)}}}} \\ {{\overset{.}{\hat{x}}(t)} = {\left( {A - {BKC}} \right){\hat{x}(t)}}} \\ {{\hat{x}\left( t_{0} \right)} = {{x_{f}\left( t_{0} \right)} + {\overset{\sim}{x}\left( t_{0} \right)}}} \end{matrix} \right. & (21) \end{matrix}$

where, u_(w)(t) is:

u _(w)(t)=(B _(f) ^(T)(P+Q)B _(f))⁻¹ B _(f) ^(T)(−(P+Q)(I−B _(f) B _(f) ^(†))BKC{circumflex over (x)}(t)+(QA+E(t)){tilde over (x)}(t)+G(t))  (22)

The symmetric positive definite matrix E(t) in an equation (22) is obtained by solving the equation (24) in which the boundary conditions satisfy the Riccati equation (23); and an adjoint vector G(t) is obtained by solving the equation (25) in which the boundary conditions satisfy the equation (26).

$\begin{matrix} {{- {\overset{.}{E}(t)}} = {{{E(t)}\left( {I - {{B_{f}\left( {{B_{f}^{T}\left( {P + Q} \right)}B_{f}} \right)}^{- 1}B_{f}^{T}Q}} \right)A} + {{A^{T}\left( {I - {Q{B_{f}\left( {{B_{f}^{T}\left( {P + Q} \right)}B_{f}} \right)}^{- 1}B_{f}^{T}}} \right)}{E(t)}} - {{E(t)}{B_{f}\left( {{B_{f}^{T}\left( {P + Q} \right)}B_{f}} \right)}^{- 1}B_{f}^{T}{E(t)}} + {A^{T}QA} - {A^{T}Q{B_{f}\left( {{B_{f}^{T}\left( {P + Q} \right)}B_{f}} \right)}^{- 1}B_{f}^{T}{QA}}}} & (23) \\ {\mspace{79mu} {{C^{T}{E({tf})}C} = R}} & (24) \\ {{{\overset{.}{G}(t)} = {{\left( {{\left( {{A^{T}Q} + {E(t)}} \right){B_{f}\left( {{B_{f}^{T}\left( {P + Q} \right)}B_{f}} \right)}^{- 1}} - A^{T}} \right){G(t)}} + \left( {{E(t)} + {A^{T}Q}} \right)}}\mspace{79mu} {\left( {I - {{B_{f}\left( {{B_{f}^{T}\left( {P + Q} \right)}B_{f}} \right)}^{- 1}\left( {P + Q} \right)}} \right)\left( {I - {B_{f}B_{f}^{\dagger}}} \right){KC}{\hat{x}(t)}}} & (25) \\ {\mspace{79mu} {{G({tf})} = 0}} & (26) \end{matrix}$

Using the switch logic in FIG. 2, the reconfigured u_(f) is switched into an aero-engine fault system, and the compensated controller input y_(c)(t) is switched into the original aero-engine controller without changing the parameter of the original aero-engine controller K.

step 5: respectively verifying the design of bumpless transfer control under two conditions, wherein in a condition 1, a system model at a certain steady point of a test-run state of a three ducts variable cycle engine is adopted, and the model coefficient of the three ducts variable cycle engine is:

$\begin{matrix} {{A = \begin{bmatrix} {{- {6.5}}865} & 21.8290 \\ {{- {0.6}}504} & 0.2127 \end{bmatrix}},{B = \begin{bmatrix} {{0.0}754} & 0.2371 \\ {0.2629} & 0.1484 \end{bmatrix}},{C = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix}},{{x(0)} = \left\lbrack {{{- 2}0},{35}} \right\rbrack^{T}}} & (27) \end{matrix}$

The control input is u=[ΔW_(fb)(t),ΔA₈ (t)]^(T), where ΔW_(fb) is the variation of aero-engine fuel flow, and ΔA₈ is the variation [Δn_(l)(t),Δn_(h)(t)]^(T) of an aero-engine guide vane angle; and where Δn_(l) is the variation of the rotational speed of an aero-engine low pressure rotor, and Δn_(h) is the variation of the rotational speed of an aero-engine high pressure rotor.

Suppose the actuator fault occurs at t=0.5 s, B_(f) is diagnosed at t=3 s.

$\begin{matrix} {B_{f} = \begin{bmatrix} 0.6198 & {0.4772} \\ {{0.3}233} & 0.1434 \end{bmatrix}} & (28) \end{matrix}$

Through the virtual actuator design of step 3, an input curve of an aero-engine system after fault is shown in FIG. 3, and a model output is shown in FIG. 4. Compared with the prior art, the input designed in step 3 can effectively reduce the bump brought by the switching and realize the recovery of a bumpless aero-engine system in FIG. 4.

step 6: respectively verifying the design of the bumpless transfer control under two conditions, wherein in a condition 2, a small perturbation model in a turbofan engine mode “FC01” of 90K is adopted, and the aero-engine system is:

$\begin{matrix} {{A = \begin{bmatrix} {{- 3.855}7} & 1.4467 \\ {{0.4}690} & {{- {4.7}}081} \end{bmatrix}},{B = \begin{bmatrix} {23{0.6}739} \\ {653.5547} \end{bmatrix}},{C = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix}},{{x(0)} = \left\lbrack {{{- 8}0},\ {{- 1}03.5}} \right\rbrack^{T}}} & (27) \end{matrix}$

The control input is u=W_(f), and W_(f) is turbofan engine fuel flow, y=[Δn_(f)(t),Δn_(c)(t)]^(T),where Δn_(f) is the variation of the rotational speed of the fan of a turbofan engine, and Δn_(c) is the variation of the rotational speed of a compressor of the turbofan engine.

Suppose the actuator fault occurs at t=0.4 s, B_(f) is diagnosed at t=0.8 s.

$\begin{matrix} {B_{f} = \begin{bmatrix} 161.4717 \\ {{- 5}2{2.8}438} \end{bmatrix}} & (28) \end{matrix}$

Through the virtual actuator design of step 4, the input curve of a system after fault is shown in FIG. 5, and the model output is shown in FIG. 6. Compared with the prior art, the input designed in step 5 can effectively reduce the bump brought by the switching and realize the recovery of a bumpless aero-engine control system in FIG. 6. 

1. A bumpless transfer fault tolerant control method for an aero-engine actuator fault, wherein comprising the following steps: step 1: expressing an aero-engine system as: $\begin{matrix} {\quad\left\{ \begin{matrix} {{\overset{.}{x}(t)} = {{{Ax}(t)} + {{Bu}(t)}}} \\ {{y(t)} = {{Cx}(t)}} \end{matrix} \right.} & (1) \end{matrix}$ where, x(t)∈R^(n) is a state of a system, A is n-dimensional square matrix, B is n×m matrix, C is n-dimensional square matrix, u(t)∈R^(m) is a system input and the input is designed as a form of output-state feedback: m is control input dimension, and n is state dimension; u(t)=Ky(t)  (2) where, K is gain matrix of an aero-engine controller; when the actuator fault occurs, an aero-engine system is expressed as $\begin{matrix} \left\{ \begin{matrix} {{{\overset{.}{x}}_{f}(t)} = {{{Ax}_{f}(t)} + {B_{f}{u_{f}(t)}}}} \\ {{y_{f}(t)} = {{Cx}_{f}(t)}} \end{matrix} \right. & (3) \end{matrix}$ where, an actuator fault matrix B_(f) is known, and B_(f) ^(T)*B_(f) is an invertible matrix; and f is used for characterizing a subscript of a fault system; step 2: designing an improved virtual actuator, with a structural form shown in (4): $\begin{matrix} \left\{ \begin{matrix} {{\overset{.}{\overset{\sim}{x}}(t)} = {{A{\overset{\sim}{x}(t)}} + {B{u(t)}} - {B_{f}{u_{f}(t)}}}} \\ {{u_{f}(t)} = {{u_{w}(t)} + {N{u_{c}(t)}}}} \\ {{y_{c}(t)} = {{C{\overset{\sim}{x}(t)}} + {y_{f}(t)}}} \end{matrix} \right. & (4) \end{matrix}$ where, {tilde over (x)}(t)∈R^(n) is a virtual actuator state, u_(c)(t)=−Ky_(c)(t),K is the same as that in an equation (2), u_(w)(t) is a parameter to be designed, N=B_(f) ^(†)B_(f), B_(f) ^(†) is a Moore-Penrose inverse matrix of B_(f); c is a subscript of a nominal controller, and w is a subscript of a variable to be solved; step 3: in order to implement an aero-engine fault system in step 1 of a bumpless transfer of an improved virtual actuator in step 2, designing performance parameters shown in an equation (5), wherein when a performance function is optimized, the bumpless transfer of the virtual actuator in step 2 is implemented; J=½{tilde over (x)} ^(T)(tf)C ^(T) RC{tilde over (x)}(tf)+∫₀ ^(tf)½(Bu(t)−B _(f) u _(f)(t))^(T) P(Bu(t)−B _(f) u _(f)(t))+½{tilde over ({dot over (x)})}^(T)(t)Q{tilde over ({dot over (x)})}dt  (5) where, P≥0, Q≥0, R>0, P+Q>0, and P,Q, R are symmetric weight matrices; step 4: according to a form of an actuator fault matrix B_(f), considering the following two Conditions: Condition 1: B _(f) B _(f) ^(†) B=B  (6) Condition 2: B _(f) B _(f) ^(†) B≠B  (7) when condition 1 occurs, the improved virtual executor (4) in step 2 is simplified as a form of the following equation (8): $\begin{matrix} \left\{ \begin{matrix} {{\overset{.}{\overset{\sim}{x}}(t)} = {{A{\overset{\sim}{x}(t)}} - {B_{f}{u_{w}(t)}}}} \\ {{\overset{\sim}{x}\left( t_{0} \right)} = a} \end{matrix} \right. & (8) \end{matrix}$ where, a is an initial state that constant vectors characterize, which is obtained through difference between a state in aero-engine system (1) in step 1 and a state in a system (3) at the time when B_(f) is diagnosed after the fault; when condition 2 occurs, the virtual executor (4) in step 2 is written as a form of the following equation (9): $\begin{matrix} {\quad\left\{ \begin{matrix} {{\overset{.}{\overset{\sim}{x}}(t)} = {{A{\overset{\sim}{x}(t)}} - {\left( {I - {B_{f}B_{f}^{\dagger}}} \right){BKC}{\overset{\sim}{x}(t)}} - {\left( {I - {B_{f}B_{f}^{\dagger}}} \right){{BKy}_{f}(t)}} - {B_{f}{u_{w}(t)}}}} \\ {{\overset{\sim}{x}\left( t_{0} \right)} = a} \end{matrix} \right.} & (9) \end{matrix}$ where, a is an initial state that constant vectors characterize, which is obtained through difference between the state in aero-engine system (1) in step 1 and the state in a system (3) at the time when the fault B_(f) is diagnosed, and I is n-dimensional square matrix; step 5: in consideration of the condition 1 in step 4, designing a parameter u_(w)(t) according to an equation (10), that is, satisfying a performance index function in step 3 and implementing an aero-engine fault system (3) in step 1 of the bumpless transfer of the improved virtual actuator (4) in step 2: u _(w)(t)=(B _(f) ^(T)(P+Q)B _(f))⁻¹ B _(f) ^(T)(QA+F(t)){tilde over (x)}(t)  (10) where, the matrix F(t) is a symmetric positive definite matrix, and satisfies the equation (11) in the time interval t∈[0, tf]: −{dot over (F)}(t)=F(t)A+(A ^(T)−(A ^(T) Q+F(t))B _(f)(B _(f) ^(T)(P+Q)B _(f))^(†) B _(f) ^(T)(QA+F(t)))   (11) F t) satisfies the following boundary condition (12): C ^(T) F(tf)C=R  (12) where, R is a weight matrix in step 3(5); step 6: in consideration of the condition 2 in step 4, defining {circumflex over (x)}(t):={tilde over (x)}(t)+x_(f)(t), and expressing the reconfigured aero-engine control system as: $\begin{matrix} \left\{ \begin{matrix} {{\overset{.}{\hat{x}}(t)} = {{A{\hat{x}(t)}} + {B{u(t)}}}} \\ {{\hat{y}(t)} = {C{\hat{x}(t)}}} \end{matrix} \right. & (13) \end{matrix}$ wherein, the initial state is {circumflex over (x)}(0)=x_(f)(0)+{tilde over (x)}(0); and the reconfigured aero-engine control system state (14) influenced only by a design parameter K of an original aero-engine system controller is obtained by substituting an output-state feedback controller u(t)=Kŷ(t)=KC{circumflex over (x)}(t) into an equation (13), where K is consistent with the designed K in the equation (2) of step 1: {dot over (x)}(t)=(A−BKC){circumflex over (x)}(t)  (14) the equation (14) is substituted into a virtual actuator structure (9) in step 4, to obtain: $\begin{matrix} \left\{ \begin{matrix} {{\overset{.}{\overset{\sim}{x}}(t)} = {{A{\overset{\sim}{x}(t)}} - {B_{f}{u_{w}(t)}} - {\left( {I - {B_{f}B_{f}^{\dagger}}} \right){BKC}{\hat{x}(t)}}}} \\ {{\overset{\sim}{x}\left( t_{0} \right)} = a} \end{matrix} \right. & (15) \end{matrix}$ the design parameter u_(w)(t) is shown in an equation (16), that is, the performance index function in step 3 is satisfied, and the aero-engine fault system (3) in step 1 of the bumpless transfer of the improved virtual actuator (4) in step 2 is implemented: u _(w)(t)=(B _(f) ^(T)(P+Q)B _(f))⁻¹ B _(f) ^(T)(−(P+Q)(I−B _(f) B _(f) ^(†))BKC{circumflex over (x)}(t)+(QA+E(t)){tilde over (x)}(t)+G(t))  (16) where {circumflex over (x)}(t) satisfies the equation (14), and E(t) is the symmetric positive definite matrix of the equation (17) and satisfies a boundary condition of the equation (18); $\begin{matrix} {{- {\overset{.}{E}(t)}} = {{{E(t)}\left( {I - {{B_{f}\left( {{B_{f}^{T}\left( {P + Q} \right)}B_{f}} \right)}^{- 1}B_{f}^{T}Q}} \right)A} + {{A^{T}\left( {I - {Q{B_{f}\left( {{B_{f}^{T}\left( {P + Q} \right)}B_{f}} \right)}^{- 1}B_{f}^{T}}} \right)}{E(t)}} - {{E(t)}{B_{f}\left( {{B_{f}^{T}\left( {P + Q} \right)}B_{f}} \right)}^{- 1}B_{f}^{T}{E(t)}} + {A^{T}{QA}} - {A^{T}Q{B_{f}\left( {{B_{f}^{T}\left( {P + Q} \right)}B_{f}} \right)}^{- 1}B_{f}^{T}QA}}} & (17) \end{matrix}$ E (t) satisfies the boundary condition: C ^(T) E(tf)C=R  (18) an adjoint vector G(t) satisfies the following equation: $\begin{matrix} {{{\overset{.}{G}(t)} = {{\left( {{\left( {{A^{T}Q} + {E(t)}} \right){B_{f}\left( {{B_{f}^{T}\left( {P + Q} \right)}B_{f}} \right)}^{- 1}} - A^{T}} \right){G(t)}} + \left( {{E(t)} + {A^{T}Q}} \right)}}\mspace{79mu} {\left( {I - {{B_{f}\left( {{B_{f}^{T}\left( {P + Q} \right)}B_{f}} \right)}^{- 1}\left( {P + Q} \right)}} \right)\left( {I - {B_{f}B_{f}^{\dagger}}} \right){KC}{\hat{x}(t)}}} & (19) \end{matrix}$ the boundary condition of the adjoint equation (19) is G(tf)=0  (20). 